Is Detainee 2 Abu Faraj al-Libbi?
I noticed something about as I’ve been working on some more Hassan Ghul posts. Abu Faraj al-Libbi–whom the ICRC refers to by his real name, Mustafah Faraj al-Azibi–was captured on May 2, 2005. Al-Libbi was (more credibly than usually) alleged to be al Qaeda’s then-number 3 when he was captured. This makes it possible he was the detainee mentioned obliquely and whose name is still redacted in the May 30, 2005 CAT memo (indeed, the name Abu Faraj al-Libbi would be a near fit for the redaction). It’s conceivable, after all, that al-Libbi would not need that much of a discussion in May 2005, and it would make sense to treat al-Libbi among the discussion of Ghul and–especially–KSM and Abu Zubaydah.
Now, this is all just an observation on the timing, one possibility. But if al-Libbi is the second detainee mentioned in the CAT memo, then he can’t be the detainee at question in the May 10, 2005 Combined memo–drafts of the Combined memo far predated the capture of al-Libbi (as did Jim Comey’s discussion of the individual detainee whom Combined really was about), even assuming some deception about his capture date.
Also, we know that al-Libbi wasn’t waterboarded. He was interviewed for the ICRC report (which counted only three detainees having been waterboarded), though if he described his treatment to them, he asked them not to use his name. Interestingly, though, one of the detainees who was water doused was threatened–to the point of being loaded onto the waterboard table–with waterboarding.
In three cases cold water was also poured over the detainee while he was lying on a plastic sheet raised at the edges by guards to contain the water around his body creating an immersion bath with just the head exposed. In one case a detainee was strapped to a tilting bed and cold water was poured over his body while he was threatened with “water boarding” (although that procedure was not actually carried out on that individual).
We obviously don’t know one way or another. But the possibility that al-Libbi was the second detainee mentioned in the May 30 memo has me rethinking my wildarsed guess that the Combined Memo was written to make it possible to waterboard Detainee 2.
My theory is the Combined memo is exactly what Ullyot claimed it wasn’t:
The Combined Memo was a deliberate response to the CIA IG’s report. Under the guise of providing generalized advice going forward, it was really retrospectively re-authorizing the torture already carried out.
This is my opinion as well. I have suggested that the abstraction avoids prohibiting a specific bad outcome with combined techniques already completed. I speculate the Bradbury drafter pushback was from those in OLC who had hints of the bad outcome but not details, and Comey was after more. I think he knew they could not justify good faith in abstracting the combinations when a real “retrospective” example was floating around.
Are you suggesting they used cover of Ghul’s torture to write it? THen why the pressure on the second memo–there’s nothing that isn’t already approved by the first?
And why did Comey believe it was about a particular detainee?
On second thought, I have a refinement to my theory. The Combined Memo is ostensibly about KSM. Here’s why. I believe that the faxes that are referred to in these memos are always about individual detainees. The citations in the memos are in this form:
{Date in dd mon format} {Detainee Surname} Fax
[The fact that they are italicized is important]
In the Combined Memo, the fax, from 2005, is referred to as
22 April [Redacted] Fax
The redacted area is enough for four letter name (one upper case and three lower case letters) or a three letter abbreviation (three upper case letters). As you’ve noted before, the Combined Memo largely relies on the Background Paper (Dec. 2004), except when it talks about waterboarding in combination with sleep deprivation. I think they needed a paper trail to cover the specific combination of torture they carried out on KSM because the CIA IG’s report raised particular questions about it. They used the Combined Memo to claim that what they did to KSM wasn’t torture and the CAT memo to claim that it wasn’t cruel, inhuman, or degrading.
I think the redacted word there is the name of the CIA lawyer who wrote it–not about the detainee.
Which is not to say they’re not about individual detainees (though I’m not sure I buy that the April one is). Just that the title won’t tell you who they’re about, it’ll just tell you who it is from.
And I still don’t see any logic to an opinion written about a pre-June 15, 2004 treatment, since Goldsmith was very careful about not withdrawing stuff and leaving CIA totally exposed retroactively (and as much as said so to SASC). So I still insist that it has to be post June 15, 2004–something that happened before a new memo was written.
But he did withdraw the really expansive August 2002 memo. Remember, we’re talking about combined techniques. The memo Goldsmith left in place was equivalent to the 2005 techniques and didn’t address the way they really waterboarded KSM.
Um, I’ll wager a six pack on this one. Beamish vs. Fuller’s ESB?
Seriously, I can see how you would come to that conclusion based on the reference on page 5 of the May 30 memo to the “August 2 Rizzo Letter”. However, if you’re right, there’s an Assistant General Counsel at the CIA with a very unusual first name. Look at the redactions for the January 4 fax. The full name of that Asst. General Counsel is at least 5 characters longer than “John A. Rizzo”, but the last name is shorter than “Rizzo”. Either the first name is 8-10 characters or the lawyer goes by “Billy Bob” or “Mary Sue”. It’s not impossible. It could be something like Alejandro A. Ruiz.
I am shocked, shocked to find wagering at the blog!
geez, glad we never told ya about it then
here’s yer bill for last weeks losses …
btw, in these hard times, we’re uppin the Vig to 17.5 percent
thanks for your support
IBB (international brotherhood of bookmakers) local 1692
always look for the union label